A few weeks ago, I had the chance to hear one of my favourite journalists, CNN’s Brian Stelter, speak at an event hosted by the Canadian Journalism Foundation. I was excited to hear his thoughts on journalism in the so-called Trump era—and, very early on in his talk, I was taken aback by his positivity on the subject.

Stelter said he sees Trump’s attacks as an opportunity. “When he calls real news fake, it’s a great opportunity to explain why we do what we do,” he said.

Indeed, many news organizations have taken the opportunity (or should I say abundance of opportunities) to explain how journalism really works. I’ve written before about the Toronto Star’s “Trust Project” which, although probably not directly or solely in response to Trump, shows readers the behind-the-scenes of the Star’s journalism. Even a big-screen portrayal of journalism like The Post can help to inform people about the process of journalism.

The issue, of course, is who is listening to those explanations of journalism. Certainly, some people could ignore the explanations or simply dismiss them as “fake news.” But maybe those people’s minds can’t be changed by any explanation, no matter how truthful. It’s still beneficial to be transparent about the reporting process—and when Trump accuses the media of being dishonest, it’s powerful when the media responds by being transparent about their reporting processes.

It’s worth noting, though, that Trump’s attacks on journalism aren’t harmless. In July of last year, he appeared to encourage violence against journalists when he tweeted a video showing a man beating up another man whose face was covered by CNN’s logo. More recently, a man was arrested after threatening to kill CNN reporters at the network’s headquarters in Atlanta. Stelter called the instance “a reminder of the daily trouble” that journalists can face.

He also talked about the fact that Trump forces people to have discussions about important subjects, like gender, race and what it means to be an American. Many of these conversations have come up in the media; through panel discussions, op-eds, investigative journalism, columns, Twitter threads, podcasts and every other medium out there.

As Trump’s time in office has gone on, we have seen more and more of these conversations unfold. Journalism has become an important platform for public debate over controversial topics (take the recent CNN Town Hall on gun control, for example). Journalists have also started a lot of these conversations through their own reporting and investigations, helping to hold truth to power and inform the public about the actions of their elected officials.

It’s a challenging time to be studying journalism, but also an incredibly rewarding one. I was inspired by Stelter’s talk and, as a self-proclaimed optimist, I enjoyed the positive spin he put on Trump’s attacks on the media. It’s easy to look at Trump’s attacks on journalists and see storm clouds. But, as Stelter’s remarks show, there can be a silver lining.

I didn’t want to write about U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Fake News Awards.” I really didn’t. When I received an email alert from Fox News about the full list—a list, it is interesting to note, which contained no stories or reporters from Fox—I was, honestly, stunned. I didn’t expect the “awards” to be posted on the GOP website. Although the site crashed almost immediately, the fact that the list was posted there—and not, as I had expected, in a series of tweets from Trump’s account—added an air of seemingly-needed legitimacy to the whole thing.

As a journalism student, journalist and strong believer in the indisputable importance of the freedom of the press, I didn’t want to legitimize Trump’s open attack on the media any further by writing about it (if only to my audience). But the more I thought about Trump’s anti-media rhetoric, the more I was reminded of the new movie The Post, which I saw recently and really enjoyed.

The Post tells the story of the tough decision faced by The Washington Post editors and publisher Katharine Graham in the wake of TheNew York Times publishing, and subsequently being barred from publishing, stories about the Pentagon Papers in 1971. (The papers revealed the scope of U.S. involvement in the war, and notably the fact that four U.S. presidents who served at the time of the war did not think America would win, yet kept sending more troops.) Should The Post publish stories about the papers, even though they would face almost certain legal action?

Legal action wasn’t the only concern in deciding whether to publish the stories. Graham had political friends who would be impacted by the stories, like Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defence. Her husband had been close friends with John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Ben Bradlee, the Post’s executive editor, was also friends with Kennedy, among others. The Post’s eventual decision to publish marked, at the time, a shift from journalists being friends with politicians to journalists taking on more of a watchdog role (or perhaps simply choosing to uphold this role despite existing friendships).

I won’t spoil too much (although it is based on history, so it’s technically not spoiling anything) but the end of the movie shows then-president Richard Nixon in his office, angrily discussing his disdain for the Washington Post and saying that no Post reporter would ever be allowed in the White House again. The audience in the theatre tittered—Nixon’s words, of course, are ironic considering The Post’s Watergate coverage. But there was another underlying amusement in his words. The words—and the enraged tone—sounded not too different than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

To me, The Post was a reminder of all of the behind-the-scenes work journalists do when working on a story. Trump’s attitude towards the media suggests he thinks certain journalists and news organizations are out to get him, and will publish any claim to try to bring him down. Nixon may have thought something similar. But in The Post, we see the work of journalists to verify the information they’re receiving—and we see the immensely difficult considerations they must make about what information to publish. Both in the movie and in real life, the decision was made to publish the Pentagon Papers stories because the public has a right to know about what their government is doing.

In seeking to hold truth to power, some journalists make mistakes. As Vox points out, the reporters and outlets listed in Trump’s “Fake News Awards” almost always issued corrections (in one case, reporters and editors resigned followed the publication of a story which turned out to be false). There are certainly lots of examples of unequivocally false stories on the Internet, but the ones Trump listed do not fit this category. In denouncing the press for their mistakes, Trump demonstrates a profound ignorance of the true role of journalists in a free and democratic society. Maybe he should watch The Post.

This week was a tale of two social media networks, as design and algorithm updates from Snapchat and Facebook drew ire from users and news organizations alike.

In the new Snapchat update, messages and stories from friends appear on one side of the screen, while other content (from “publishers, creators and the community”) appears by swiping to the other side. In a statement from November, Snapchat said, “Separating social from media has allowed us to build the best way to communicate with friends … while addressing many of the problems that plague the Internet today.”

As an avid user of Snapchat, I can’t say that I am ever bothered by seeing content from friends and media on the same screen. I think part of growing up with technology (and, for me, attending a high school which focused on 21st-century skills) meant developing the ability to critically judge online content. Young people, many of whom are complaining about this change, have grown up to be digital citizens; I would say that most people have the ability to differentiate between content from various sources. (Perhaps the spread of fake news disproves that statement. But I digress.)

There were widespread negative reactions to the update, with some even threatening to stop using Snapchat because of it. Not everyone, it seems, feels the need to separate content from friends and others.

Facebook’s algorithm update is in a faintly similar vein—they are now prioritizing “social” content from family and friends, instead of “media” content posted by news organizations (as well as content from businesses and brands). But unlike Snapchat, Facebook hasn’t simply relocated that content to another page on the app. They’ve changed the algorithm so it’s less likely to show up in the first place.

The move is, obviously, a blow to publications who derive traffic from social media. But it’s also unfortunate for consumers. I’m sure some people are glad they won’t be seeing news content on Facebook—but for a lot of people, and especially young people, social media has become a place to consume news. This is the case for me. I have “liked” several news pages on Facebook, but even before this algorithm announcement I noticed that I rarely saw those articles on my feed. Instead, I saw countless memes and videos shared by friends; and when I logged on a few hours later, I would see the exact same content.

It’s interesting to note the timing of Facebook’s decision. It’s been in the works since last year, Mark Zuckerberg said in his post announcing the update. But it also comes at a time when Facebook is under scrutiny for its role in selling ad space to Russians and being a hotbed of fake news and misinformation during the 2016 U.S. election.

This algorithm change could certainly be perceived as a surface-level fix for the issue of fake news: instead of directly addressing the problem so that users are shown reputable news, their algorithm will now show less news overall. In terms of their ongoing fake news issues, this change doesn’t really help anyone. It could even make things worse, since accurate news stories aren’t prioritized to set the record straight; not to mention that friends and family (whose content is prioritized) could still share links to erroneous or fake stories.

As a young person who uses social media on a daily, if not hourly, basis, Facebook’s change isn’t in line with what I want to see on the app. Most of my friends don’t even use Facebook to do more than share funny videos. When I log onto Facebook, I’m not expecting to see updates from friends; I’m expecting to see articles and posts from pages I’ve liked.

In discussing Facebook’s new algorithm with one of my best friends, we realized that, if anything, Facebook could take a leaf out of Snapchat’s book. They could create two separate news feeds; one for content from friends and family, and one for content from media and businesses (and, even then, there would be value in creating further separations since not all content shared by companies meets the same objective, accurate standards adhered to by news companies).

Social media may have originated as an online social sphere for keeping up with friends and family, but it has evolved into a series of multifaceted platforms with a variety of purposes. Sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat are no longer just places to see pictures of a friend’s new dog; they’re places to engage with news about the world (and messages from brands) in a variety of forms, from articles to videos and everything in between.

Separating the “social” from the “media” seems like a reversal of where social media was naturally headed, and that goes for both Facebook and Snapchat’s updates. Perhaps instead of assuming what content people want to be prioritized (or separated), social media platforms could start by asking consumers what content is important to them. Because I think for a lot of us, taking the “media” out of “social media”, or even simply separating the two, is not what we want to see.

When powerful figures try to dissuade the public from learning the truth, facts matter. A new CNN ad attempts to make this point with fruit (yes, you read that correctly). “This is an apple,” text underneath a shiny red apple reads. As an image of an apple continues to show, the text and voiceover explain that, no matter how hard some people might try to convince you are looking at a banana, the fruit in question remains an apple.

The ad is obviously, and perhaps quite smartly, targeted at U.S. President Donald Trump. Since his days on the campaign trail, Trump has consistently made claims at odds with the truth. Daniel Dale, the Toronto Star’s Washington Correspondent, fact-checks Trump. The sheer number of inaccuracies is startling—most recently, Trump broke what Dale called “his one-week record for dishonesty,” making 57 false claims.

In a literal sense, there is nothing but the truth—our world is made up of scientific, real truths. But our own biases and perceptions may mean that we all have different truths, even when data tells us differently.

It is this that, in my mind, complicates CNN’s ad. Yes, the fruit in the image is an apple. But if enough people begin to say it is a banana, doesn’t it kind of become a banana? If everyone believes it is a banana, does it matter that it is really and truly classified as an apple?

In Trump’s presidency we’ve seen, for instance, him employ rhetoric insisting that Muslim people are dangerous and should not be allowed into the country. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter that the data shows that “more Americans have been killed by white American men with no connection to Islam than by Muslim terrorists or foreigners,” as Vox reported. Trump says, over and over, that Muslim people are dangerous and pose a threat to American security—and despite the facts proving otherwise, some people believe him. We are looking at an apple, but some people are convinced it is a banana.

The premise of CNN’s ad is correct: facts matter. But more and more, we are seeing that they might not matter to an alarming number of people. As I’ve already written, emotions, biases and perceptions can impact what we believe to be true. That right-wing media on his side are further perpetuating incorrect ideas about Muslim people only helps Trump’s case in convincing people of something that is not true.

But while some of us see sites like Breitbart and InfoWars as those perpetrators of false ideas and stereotypes, it’s important to remember that many people see centre and more left-leaning media organizations in this way, too. No media organization is perfect. I think it’s crucial to remember the role that journalists and media played in helping to elect Trump; both by giving his rhetoric sensationalized coverage, and by overplaying stories about Hillary Clinton such as her email scandal.

Still, the fact remains that many people see CNN and other similar news organizations as—to borrow one of Trump’s favourite terms—“fake news.” CNN may be calling apples apples, but when a large number of people (influenced by powerful politicians and media outlets) believe those apples to be bananas, we have a severe disparity in opinions.

I may just be a journalism student, but in my opinion, it’s no longer enough for media organizations to say, “This is the truth—this is an apple and you should believe us because we are honest and value facts.” Some level of public skepticism in journalism is healthy (it is, after all, an imperfect institution). However, a recent poll suggests that 46% of Americans believe Trump when he says that major news outlets make up stories about him. As journalists, we need to do more to show the public why they can trust us, instead of just stating that that trust should exist.

One way that I see this happening is by creating a culture of transparency in journalism. I see a lot of news organizations taking steps towards this already. The Toronto Star, for example, launched a “Trust Project” to take readers behind the scenes of the newspaper.

These articles from the Star show how certain reporters take on their responsibilities, and even things like how the paper chooses when to publish a breaking news story, how they write headlines and how they correct mistakes. It’s hard to call something from the Star “fake news” when you read about the actual processes they use to ensure accuracy. This model of writing about the inner workings of the paper is enlightening to readers.

More transparency about how journalism is done can show the public why they should trust journalists when we say that an apple is, in fact, an apple. This is all not to say that CNN’s apple campaign is for naught, however. The ad is engaging in its simplicity and, if this lengthy post shows anything, it is certainly a conversation starter about facts and public trust in journalism. I hope that we continue to have these conversations as both producers and consumers of the news, because CNN is right—no matter how many times someone screams “BANANA” at an apple, the truth matters.

“I don’t like your little games,” Taylor Swift sings in the opening of her brand new single Look What You Made Me Do. She continues, “Don’t like your tilted stage. The role you made me play. Of the fool, no, I don’t like you.” I had speculated that this single, the first off her new album Reputation, dropping November 10th, would be like this; different, dark and directed at the people who she perceives to have wronged her in the past few years.

What I didn’t expect, though, was how vengeful the song would be (maybe I didn’t read closely enough into the snake images posted on her Instagram). The “you” in the song seems ambiguous; it could be Kanye West, who toured on a “tilted stage,” or Kim Kardashian, who leaked a phone call between Taylor and Kanye over a dispute about a lyric in one of Kanye’s songs. It could also refer to Katy Perry, who also publicly feuded with Taylor over dancers leaving her tour. But “you” could also mean a more conglomerate group; the media in general, perhaps, or even the general public. Look what all of these people say about me, look at the hate that I endure, she could be singing; I had no choice but to fire back in this song. Look what you made me do.

I have to wonder: does it matter who the song is about? To many people, the answer is yes. I suppose I’m undecided. I don’t want to enjoy the song because it’s adding fuel to the fire of Taylor’s celebrity fights. I want to enjoy it because it sends the message that if, for whatever reason, you feel knocked down by something, you can use that as motivation to come back and be stronger than ever. This is embodied in the lyrics, “But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of time. Honey, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the time.” To me, the entire premise of the song is that her past struggles have “made” her come back and release what already looks to be a successful single.

I worry that for young Taylor Swift fans, though, that message could be misconstrued. Because, following those emboldening lines about rising from the dead are these lyrics: “I’ve got a list of names and yours is in red underlined.” Those words seem to suggest that if you don’t like someone, you should publicly announce it and act in retaliation; get revenge instead of trying to come to a mutual agreement and heal your wounds. I hope that listeners, especially young ones, can look past the drama and bad blood (see what I did there?) and see that the song has an empowering message.

But maybe that is the point—that many members of the media and many people in society simply can’t look past the drama. We say we don’t care, but we can’t look away from the headlines, the gossip and the snarky social media posts. Taylor’s drama with Kanye, Kim and Katy would almost certainly not have reached the levels it did had it not played out in the news for everyone to watch. And that damage, real or perceived, to Taylor’s “good girl” image, may very well be the driving force behind this single and this new era of music for Taylor.

Even in the songs from 1989, her last album, she seemed willing to challenge that label of the innocent, golden girl. I wonder now if she’s throwing it out the window entirely. I’m inclined to believe her when she sings, “I’m sorry, the old Taylor can’t come to the phone right now. Why? Oh ‘cause she’s dead!” In each of her albums so far, Taylor has experimented with new sounds and new themes. She successfully crossed the line from country to pop, shedding her skin like the snake on her Instagram. Taylor Swift is no stranger at reinventing herself, doing so in the public eye, therefore altering her—wait for it—reputation.

Still, despite the fact that she consistently sheds her skin, so to speak, the theme of rising above negativity or hatred is nothing new for Taylor Swift. Take, for example, the first single from her last album. In Shake It Off, she sings about “what people say”—that she stays out too late, has nothing in her brain and “goes on too many dates” but “can’t make them stay.” She counters these claims by singing that the haters are, well, gonna hate; and that she’s just gonna shake it off.

An even earlier version of this comes from Taylor’s song Mean from her album Speak Now. In that song, she hits back at a music critic who said that she couldn’t sing. The chorus goes, “Someday, I’ll be living in a big old city, and all you’re ever gonna be is mean. Someday, I’ll be big enough that you can’t hit me and all you’re ever gonna be is mean. Why you gotta be so mean?”

Those songs, though, seem to fight back against people who are just plain mean, not people with whom you’ve been engaged in a two-way argument. So does the song send the message that if you are fighting with someone, you should publicly declare your dislike for them and make it clear that you’re seeking revenge? Or does it send the message that you can rise above actions that hurt you and be successful despite what you’ve endured?

It’s open to interpretation, really; but one thing is for certain. If you don’t like this song, Taylor Swift isn’t interested. After all, “you” made her do this—and I have a feeling that this single is just the first nail in the coffin. Welcome to the Reputation era. Enjoying your stay so far?

It was the day of my journalism orientation, and I was sitting with new friends in an unfamiliar building. Professors spoke, imparting words of wisdom to their new pupils. One professor said something that I immediately jotted down in a notebook, and have thought of often since that day: “Afflict the comfortable.”

Those three words opened my eyes to a purpose of journalism that I hadn’t previously considered: that journalists are watchdogs, reporting on those in power (those who are “comfortable”) in a truthful and accurate manner. This role of journalists has always been a pillar of democracy; and it has become even more crucial in recent years, months, and even days, as Donald Trump campaigned, won the Electoral College, and was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America.

Journalism is not perfect; but as a journalism student, I’ve learned that good journalists are committed to learning how to improve and accurately cover what is happening. I am inspired by the journalists who are committed to having honest conversations about the profession, about what is working and what isn’t.

On every level, the discussions I have heard about Buzzfeed’s decision to publish the dossier about Trump — from conversations in my journalism classes to conversations I watched unfold between established journalists on Twitter — are fascinating. These discussions point to the willingness of journalists to learn and improve their abilities, while remaining committed to the principle of accuracy.

Being a journalism student in the age of Trump means a lot of good discussions and valuable learning experiences. But it also means preparing for a profession which the President of the United States of America frequently bashes, and one in which the public does not have a great deal of trust.

And yet I know that for myself, and many of my peers, these things do not discourage us: they motivate us to be more committed than ever to our decision to pursue journalism. We are committed to report accurately, to be watchdogs, and to stand up for the truth. The same can be said of the countless working journalists who refuse to back away from the present-day challenges of journalism.

“Thank you very much. Good luck,” Barack Obama said at his final press conference as President. When I read this in the newspaper, it made me tear up, because it really set the stage for what was coming: a time when luck was needed for journalists. (Journalism has always been a challenging profession. But when the President refuses to take questions from certain outlets, doesn’t even hold a press conference for months after he is elected… it is a different kind of challenge.)

Much ado has been made about Obama telling journalists “Good luck”; I want to focus on the former part of his statement. Obama thanked journalists, and I want to thank journalists, too. Thank you for doing what is right, even though it is not always easy. You have a new generation of journalism students who look up to you, and who are eager to join you in afflicting the comfortable, being watchdogs and, most importantly: being journalists.

There’s supposed to be a huge winter storm where I live. The only problem? So far there’s not even a grey cloud in the sky, much less any signs of an impending blizzard. As an avid fan of storms – and an eager Canadian wishing for snow – I’ve been checking Environment Canada’s website regularly for updates on the storm. I’ve also been checking Twitter, as I typically do when I’m curious about a storm.

I think Twitter is a fascinating source of news. When I searched for the storm, I found Tweets not just from meteorologists but from everyday people. In a manner of seconds, simply through scrolling through search results I was able to gain a wide variety of perspectives on the storm. What makes Twitter so interesting is that not all of the information I received was from a “real” journalist.

I put the word “real” in quotations because what even is a journalist? According to Merriam Webster, a journalist is a “writer or editor for a news medium”. By that definition, Twitter users are not journalists (unless they happen to work for a newspaper or medium). There’s a second definition, though; one that I think is far more accurate. A journalist is “a writer who aims at a mass audience.” This definition sums up Twitter users. The people Tweeting about the winter storm may not have intended to aim their Tweet at a mass audience. However, by typing 140 characters and pressing ‘Tweet’ (and having their account set to public) those people shared their words with the world and became journalists. Or did they?

In the time I’ve spent so far writing this blog post, three more Tweets have been posted about the storm. One was from the official Twitter of a local city. The other two were from citizens who, from the bios listed on their profiles, are not journalists in the typical sense of the word.

Is anyone who communicates information a journalist? Does the information have to be aimed at a “mass audience”, as Merriam Webster’s definition of a journalist hints that it does? I’m tempted to say no to the second question because you could be a bona fide journalist and have a small audience. I think what the phrase “mass audience” is trying to convey is simply having some type of audience. Journalists communicate information for someone to read; even, in my opinion, if it’s a small audience.

That first question is a little more complex. Journalist is a job title. People – me, next year! – go to university to gain the knowledge to pursue journalism as a career. Because of this, it could be unfair to proclaim that anyone with a Twitter account and a Wifi connection is a journalist. At the same time, though, people who use Twitter in a “journalistic manner” (sharing facts, and their opinions and thoughts) aren’t necessarily trying to be journalists. They’re simply trying to communicate information, something humans have been doing since long before Twitter was invented.

So does it really matter whether people using Twitter are technically journalists? It doesn’t, really. To me, it’s simply important to acknowledge that in this day and age anyone can share information with the click of a few buttons. I don’t think this replaces society’s need for journalists, because if anything it creates more people who are willing to share their thoughts. This contributes to a more democratic society – and one where citizens are more informed about the supposed winter storm coming their way.

This was my initial reaction to the now-viral campaign It Was Never A Dress. The campaign redefines the female washroom symbol, which was previously assumed as a figure wearing a dress. According to this new information, it was never a dress. It was always, in fact, a cape.

image credits to itwasneveradress.com

People on the internet are celebrating the newfound notion of the symbol showing a woman in a cape, not a dress. But wait, hold on a second… why was a woman in a dress not good enough? The fact that this had to be changed suggests women are not good enough the way we are, and not strong enough wearing a symbol of femininity.

Think of the female washroom sign – back when everyone thought it was simply a dress – as a metaphor for women. We’ve gone along, in our dresses or whatever we were wearing, fighting for our rights and being awesome. Then It Was Never A Dress comes along and says that we’re not good enough the way we are, and that we need to have our images reinvented in people’s minds in order to be better at being women.

Furthermore, there’s what the dress was replaced with (or what women are being told they need to be more like in order to be better): a cape.

Why is the image of a woman in a cape stronger than the image of a woman in a dress?

A troubling answer: because capes are typically worn by male superheroes, and often symbolize masculine strength.

The people who are delighted at the cape-wearing woman (instead of the dress-wearing woman) are inadvertently saying that females are stronger and better when they are masculine and embody masculine traits. So what I’m getting from It Was Never A Dress is that women are not good enough the way we are – and if we put on a symbol of masculinity, we are better.

According to their website, It Was Never A Dress is “an invitation to shift perceptions and make assumptions about women and the audacious, sensitive, and powerful gestures they make every single day.”

That sentence puts up red flags for me. An invitation to make assumptions about women? That can’t have been what they meant, because it implies an open invitation to assume negative things about women. This should be what the campaign is trying to avoid.

And yet, It Was Never A Dress is, to me, perpetuating a bold (and horribly misled) assumption: that to be strong, women need to be masculine.

Throughout history, women have had to fight for our right to be recognized as equals to men. Today, in the 21st century, we are still fighting for this. We are not going to reach a point of total and complete gender equality by telling women that the way for them to be strong is by being like men.

We don’t need a new perspective on the symbol on our washroom door to tell us that women are strong; we are already strong. And without misleading campaigns like this one, we would be even stronger.

Last night, I was talking with my dad about problems in the Middle East and we also got on the topic of the earthquakes in Nepal. On Saturday, a 7.8 magnitude Earthquake struck near the city of Pokhara and since then the death toll has risen to over 4000 with subsequent aftershocks and avalanches. As we were in the middle of discussing this, someone walked in and said, “there was an Earthquake in Nepal?!”

I’m always shocked when people haven’t heard of what’s going on in the news, and this was no exception. Since the earthquake first hit on the weekend, it has been trending on Twitter and Facebook, and splashed across the front of newspapers and online news sources. That person doesn’t use any of those things, so it made sense that he hadn’t heard of it.

It is generally regarded as a good thing to be aware of what is going on in the world. This incident led me to wonder why this is.

One benefit of knowing what is happening in the news is that it puts you in a position to make a difference. There are a multitude of relief funds set up for Nepal; however, one would have to know about the disaster before they would consider providing disaster relief.

Knowing what is happening in other parts of the world also helps you to gain a better appreciation for your life. Being aware of danger in other places makes you feel thankful that you are safe. This feeling of gratefulness for your own life can improve your overall happiness and satisfaction – and it can also make you more likely to donate to the relief funds.

The other thing is that for the people living through the tragedy, an important part of their healing is sharing their story. They are grieving the loss of their families, friends, neighborhoods and monuments; they deserve to have the world listen to them, and offer its sympathies. Out of a disaster like this one are stories that need to be told; so people need to listen.

But is listening really enough? I am compelled to say that it is. Yes, simply reading a news article about the earthquakes in Nepal doesn’t directly help the people suffering there. It doesn’t give money towards aid, and it doesn’t comfort a grieving family. What it does do, though, is let the people in Nepal know that there are people across the world who care about them, and their story; and in times of suffering this is a small light, but a light nonetheless (especially when sympathy is often shared through various forms of social media).

There is of course, as there always is, another side to this. I have read many posts by bloggers who have taken a break from reading the news because it adds too much stress to their lives. There is not only the stress caused by the actual content of the news – natural disasters, senseless deaths, injustices and wars – but also the stress of keeping up with everything that is happening.

Social media has made this easy – a quick glance at the ‘Trending’ list on Twitter can usually give a pretty good snapshot of what people are talking about and what is happening in the world. However, staying updated through countless new articles and videos takes its toll; and it can feel necessary at times, because you can feel as though it is your duty to “listen” to the story of the event.

Sometimes, looking at the news can be downright depressing. It’s a trap which, unfortunately, is easy to fall into: looking at all of the horrible things happening in the world, and thinking that all hope for humanity is lost and there’s no point in trying to save it. When you don’t look at what is happening around the world, you can live in your own happy reality. This is a common reason why many people have decided it is not a good thing to be aware of what is happening in the news.

The counter argument to this is that if someone is living in their own bubble of their personal happy reality, they are being blatantly naive because bad things are happening. If everyone ignores the news to avoid the bad things that are happening, then nothing will be done about those things. An issue has to be acknowledged before it can be solved, or made better.

The question I strived to answer in this post was: is it a good thing to be aware of what is happening in the world?

I have come to the conclusion that it is different for every person. For me personally, it is a good thing. As an aspiring journalist and lover of anything with a story attached, staying updated on the news is necessary. I do sometimes feel stressed by the horrid things happening; but I try to translate those emotions into my writing (hence this post).

For other people, staying updated on the news is not a good thing. For them it is a source of distress, and it can create a “false sense of disaster”, like when people were freaking out about Ebola and they had never travelled to any of the affected regions.

The bottom line is that bad things happen whether we read news articles about them or not. If we read the articles about the bad things, though, we then at least have the opportunity to try to make a difference.

I absolutely adore Jennifer Lawrence. So I felt kind of bad when I downloaded The Hanging Tree, which she sings and is featured in Mockingjay Part One, because I had read online that she cried while filming the scene it is in because she hates singing. But I loved the song, so I couldn’t help myself.

When I first saw Mockingjay, I got chills when this song came on. The haunting melody is captivating, and so is the idea of the rebellion that the movie focuses on. Part way through the song, Jennifer’s voice is replaced with more voices; those of the people from the districts who are rebelling.

The rebellion is vehemently opposed by the Capitol; yet people rebel anyways. I’m sure they still fear the Capitol – because, really, how could they not fear a government that sends people away to fight for their deaths? – but they have something stronger than their fear: their hope of the freedom that they would get if the rebellion was successful.

Credits: Suzanne Collins and Pinterest

I love this quote because it rings true to so many aspects of life. We all have dreams, but we are all sometimes plagued by fear. Often, this is a fear of failure. We can overcome this fear by making our hope of success stronger. I believe that when your hope of success is greater than your fear of failure, you will be successful.

Hope is so powerful. As we see in The Hunger Games books and movies, hope can unite people together to fight for what they believe in and what they are hoping for. Hope is the one ray of sunlight in an otherwise dark room – and the more people who hope, the more rays of light illuminate the darkness.

An individual’s hope can be equally as powerful as a groups’, too. We see this in The Hunger Games as well; through Katniss’s actions in defying the Capitol’s wishes she shows that she has hope for a better life. At the end of The Hunger Games, Katniss pretends to eat poisonous berries along with her fellow tribute Peeta. If they both die, the Capitol will have no winner: so the Capitol is forced to intervene and declare both Katniss and Peeta the winners.

Katniss’s fear in that situation was strong – she was literally seconds away from ending her life in an attempt to defy the Capitol – but her hope that both Peeta and her could survive was stronger. In the end, her hope is what prevailed and this made her fear and bravery worth it.

A lyric in the song The Hanging Tree is, “wear a necklace of hope// side by side with me.” If we all wore a necklace of hope, we could abolish fear and make a difference in the world.